If he was ritually impure or was far off on the First Passover (i.e., 14 Nisan) and he did not observe the Second Passover (14 Iyyar), he is not liable for extirpation, because he was already exempted from the First Passover, regarding which it (i.e., the Torah) states that he would be extirpated and it was postponed to the Second Passover, where it doesn’t state extirpation. But if he erred unwittingly or was under duress during in the First Passover and didn’t observe the Second [Passover], he is liable to extirpation, because it states in the Torah that whomever was not ritually impure or far off and didn’t make the Passover [Sacrifice] at all is liable for extirpation, and that which it (i.e., the Torah) said (Numbers 9:13): “But if a man who is pure and not on a journey refrains from offering the Passover sacrifice, that person shall be cut off from his kin, etc.” And this is the matter where it (i.e., the Mishnah) states here: "אלו פטורין מן ההכרת ואלו חייבין" .

מודעית – place between it and Jerusalem is fifteen miles, and it is the intermediate measurement of that which a person can walk by foot from sunrise until eventide (see Tractate Pesahim 93b). But if on the fourteenth [of Nisan] he was outside of Modiin, this is a distant journey. But Rabbi Eliezer says that even if he was within Jerusalem and became ill or his walk (of a Jerusalemite) became disarranged, and he is unable to enter to the Temple courtyard at the time of the offering but will be at the end of the time if he arrives to the threshold of the Courtyard, surely, his case is like the law of he who was on a distant journey. But Rabbi Akiva states since he was inside from Modiin and he is not able to arrive, his case should be like the law of someone unavoidably prevented [from coming]. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.

God said regarding the Second Passover (Numbers 9:12): “They shall offer it in strict accord with the law of the Passover sacrifice,” whereas if He (i.e., God) did not add to any word on this, he would be obliged on the Second [Passover] for everything that he is required on the First [Passover]. But since it states after this in the Second Passover (Numbers 9:11): “They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs,” it excluded the removal of leaven. And what it says further (Numbers 9:12): “And they shall not leave any of it over until morning,” excludes [the command]: "לא יראה ולא ימצא"/it shall not be seen it nor shall it be found with you” (see Exodus 13:6 and 12:19), and when the it (i.e., the Torah) states (Numbers 9:12): “They shall not break a bone of it,” it excludes (Exodus 23:18, 34:25): “You shall not offer [the blood of my sacrifice] with anything leavened,” because it was not necessary for all of this specification, for when it states (Numbers 9:12): “in strict accord with the law of the Passover sacrifice,” it is enough in place of all of them, and since he doubled them, it is like he is explaining as if he will state that the law of the Passover sacrifice that I am obligated on is not other than this alone, “they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), etc. And in this manner, it will be an explanation of what it (i.e., the Torah) said, for one amplification after another amplification is only to restrict.

You already knew that if most of the community were impure by reason of a corpse (see Numbers 9:6,7 and 10) alone, he should bring the Passover [Offering] in a state of ritual impurity, but not eat it other than other than those who were defiled through corpse contact alone, for the ritual defilement was permitted to them alone as we have explained, but if the rest of the ritually impure people ate of it, they are not liable for extirpation, because it comes in the received tradition (Tractate Pesahim 95b), that which is eaten for ritually pure individuals, it is obligatory upon him because of ritual defilement, but what is not consumed by ritually pure individuals is not liable upon him because of ritual defilement. But Rabbi Eliezer states that (Numbers 5:2): “to remove from camp anyone with an eruption or a discharge and anyone defiled by a corpse,” at the time that those defiled by a corpse are sent out, those with gonorrhea and lepers are sent out, but when those who defiled by a corpse are not sent out, those with gonorrhea and lepers are not sent out, therefore, if those with gonorrhea and leprosy entered into the Sanctuary on Passover that come in ritual impurity, they are exempt. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

The intention when it (i.e., the Mishnah) states: "נוהג כל שבעה", is regarding the prohibition of eating Hametz/leaven. But on the Egyptian Passover/Pesah Mitzrayim, it is not forbidden on it the eating of Hametz other than one day alone, as it states (Exodus 13:3-4): “no leavened bread shall be eaten. You go free on this day, [in the month of Abib],” as if it said, you shall not eat Hametz on the day that you leave. And it stated [in the Mishnah] here: "לילה אחד" , meaning to say that also the night of that day it was prohibited [to eat] Hametz (see Tractate Pesahim 96b).

עד שיסתאב – until a blemish should befall it which disqualifies it from being appropriate for a sacrifice. And the words of Rabbi Akiva are correct and there is no one who disputes him.

Every place that it states [in the Mishnah]: "יפלו דמיו לנדבה" , meaning to say, a free-will donation of a burnt offering, and concerning this that he should give those monies in boxes that are in the Temple and the Bet Din offers burnt-offerings with those monies. And it follows that these distinctions that are between one who brings the free-will donations of a burnt offering or that he places their monetary value in a box, for that which he placed its monetary value in a box of its libations from the community, and the burnt-offering that he would bring its libations from what is his. And the remainder of the distinctions that are between them will be explained in the third chapter [Mishnah 5] of Tractate Temurah.

The truth substantiated by an illustration in this is for example, that his Passover Offering was combined with two burnt offerings, he leaves the three lambs until they become disqualified, and he sells them one at a time and knows that their worth is greater, as for example that the worth of one is a Denar and the Denar and-a-half and the third is two Denarim, that the total amount of all three is four-and-one-half Denarim, surely he is liable to bring three animals, two of them – each are two Denarimm and one of them is a Denar and a half.

And this that [the Mishnah] states: "ויפסיד המותר מביתו" and he sacrifices from them two burnt offerings and one of them from two complete Denarim, and from what that you need to know is that the first-born is consumed over two days and one night, but the Passover [Offering] is not consumed other than at night, and it is not eaten other than until midnight, but if the firstling was consumed according to the law of the Passover [Offering], we will bring on account of this that it will be portions of sacrifices left over beyond the legal time and bound to be burnt, that it is not consumed other than until midnight, and this general principle with us is that we don’t bring Holy Things to a disqualified house (see Tractate Pesahim 98b and in many places).

And therefore it states [in the Mishnah]: "אם חבורת כהנים יאכלו" – meaning to say, that everything should be eaten until midnight like the law of the Passover offering. But the Sages state: "ירעו עד שיסתאבו" and he should bring the equivalent of eight of them and state that all where there is for the Passover offering, its holiness should come upon this, and he offers that animal as a peace offering, and he consumes all of these animals that develop a defect in the manner that the firstling is consumed which has a defect. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

All of this is simple and doesn’t require explanation. And it states [in the Mishnah]: "אמר להם ולא אמרו לו", meaning to say, that they did not speak through commentary/explanation and it don’t permit him explicitly that he should slaughter for them, and also that he did not permit them explicitly, even though there were actions and hints that show that they rely upon each other (see The Laws of the Passover Offering, Chapter 3, Halakha 6).

It is simple that this mixture should not be made other than prior to slaughtering the Passover [Offering].

And such a second person says to his fellow. And the entire matter is simple.